I'd love it if helmet-argument threads were moved to P&R after a certain length. Too much faith, belief, dogma, etc for any other sub forum other than P&R.

Few care if their helmet REALLY prevents injury. It's just another part that must be correctly coordinated with the rest of their costume.

It's common sense that a helmet protects your head :p - why else would you wear it?

Bicycle helmets are a compromise from the start. If safety were their first, or even second priority, they would actually cover your head. It's turned into nothing more than a design exercise to see who can extract the most money for the same $0.10 worth of foam - while, of course, maintaining clear costume appropriateness.

Overall death rates for cycling is probably one of the few statistics in this debate we can rely on. I don't know where this person got it, but I lifted it from here:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Looking at your avatar, it is obvious that the outside of your helmet is not very close to the surface of your head...

Hum... surely they *do* have rocks, slick roads (they ride on f**king snow and ice for gawds sake!), and potholes, and manage to survive... without helmets... so I'm having a hard time seeing your point. It isn't my imaginary world... but I hope to go there when I die...

All helmets sold in the United States meet CSPC safety standards.
-- Lifted from April 2008 issue of Bicycling Magazine, p. 32

Fit, look, and number of vents are all you need worry about. Just think it is worth pointing out (as some others have) that almost every other sport that potentially endangers the skull (even cycling) mandates that helmets be worn. Hockey, baseball, football, motorsports, lacrosse...you get my point. I'm certain these helmets are not worn for decoration, yet quite a few of the impacts in these sports rival what a cyclist might endure. You can sit there and ask for your raw data to support the claim, but frankly, I don't care enough about it to dig up said data. The data you seek resides in each league head office.

The latest example I can think of is the Colorado Rockies' minor league first base coach who was killed by a line drive foul last season. The medical professionals stated clearly that he would have survived had he been wearing a helmet. While not cycling, a damn good example of how an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Suffice it to say, the logic of the anti-helmet advocate is flawed by mere numbers alone, and flies in the face of our own sport of cycling.

A chart with no attribution of source or methodology from a site with an agenda doesn't help me. The only relatively reliable statistics I've seen on cycling death rates are from the NHTSA and don't account for milage or time and don't make international comparisons.

Thanks anyway.

You are not going to be able to use statistics to prove this either way. The population is just not big enough to measure real results. If you want to do this then go to China and make everyone wear helmets, wait 5 years and see if the injury rate has fallen. So lacking any way to measure statistically you rely on common sense and anecdotal evidence. Common sense says that wearing a helmet will reduce pain and injury if I hit my head, this is true walking, riding a bike or mowing the lawn. Riding a bike you are moving at a higher speed so it may have greater effect.

Riding a bike is pretty safe compared to most things we do so I don't care whether you wear a helmet or not, really this is not driving up insurance rates. I wear one since I personally feel I have a better chance hitting my head riding than doing other activities and why not. You make your own decision, let others decide for themselves and quite using bogus statistics on either side to convince others of your position.

For all this stupid helmet floggin, I'd rather just protect my noggin.

Didn't read all 134 posts, so forgive me if I'm repeating, but it appears the study looked only at one cause of accident. If passing cars were the only danger cyclists face, perhaps his argument would have more merit. I'll keep wearing mine, thanks.

You too? I wish they made some kind of suped up concrete antihistamine that I could take. That would be pretty nice.

Why is the risk of falling when on your bike taken so much more seriously than when walking along the street, showering, getting out of the bath, or any of the other banal events in our everyday life that yield a statisticaly higher risk of injury?

No one is getting holier than thou about the stupidity of not wearing a crash helmet in the shower, but you run a resonable risk in comparison to cycling, of head injury.

Wear a helmet if it makes you feel safer, but also understand those of us who choose not to also made a risk assessment and came to a different conclusion.

Your "latest example" is statistically irrelevant.

Take a look at what people really die from:
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

In 2004, 1600 people died from falling down stairs. Nearly 600 died after tripping on a flat surface. Notice the low death rates of some of the things we're so paranoid about. Maybe it's the paranoia, or maybe it's an overblown danger.

My point is that everyone's "ounce of prevention" is getting spent on the less than critical risks.

This has been done for other countries as far as fatalities are concerned anyway. Yes the populations are small, but big enough to show if there is a clear benefit or not. An obvious conclusion regarding the low fatalities (even in countries where cycling is common), is that riding a bike is not inherently dangerous.

One problem is that we are basically stuck with raw fatality stats, since this is the only thing that governments routinely track. Things like miles ridden and how many cyclists are wearing helmets have to be guessed at... and non fatal injuries are unknown.

I'd love to see a study of injury rates in euro-pro cycling both before and after MHL (2003), since this is a pretty stable population, riding in the same conditions, lots of crashes, etc. I know that deaths and disabling injuries are (and always were) very rare... and most likely no one even keeps track of less serious injuries. It is interesting that the cyclists fought the institution of MHLs for 15 years before it was finally pushed through. Why do you suppose that the riders opposed a rule that would make their sport safer?

There are three positions: 1) helmets are safer, 2) no helmets are safer, 3) helmets don't do anything.

It's not clear that 2 and 3 are less bold.

Below, you seem to imply that the "status quo" position is the less bold one. If it's "obvious" that helmets are safer, then that should be the status quo.

You are making the SAME kinds of assumptions!

How come it works for your side??

This was more of a poke at the odd "helmets keep you from rolling" arguments (you did not make this argument).

I suspect that among knowlegable adults (one who deal with head injuries) there is more than sufficient evidence.

It is not "exactly" nothing. It's not clear that there is no evidence (it's not "exactly nothing"). One might even be able to extrapolate from other areas with similar crash parameters, such as roller blading, skiing, football.

More false logic. The "status quo" case does not preclude that position from being bold. For example, not that long ago, the "status quo" was that smoking safe. Lots of status quo "understanding" has been proven incorrect.

There is at least "some" evidence.

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00036941.htm

Well, no, "we" don't have to do it that way. One reason not to do it that way is that there will never be sufficient evidence for the "skeptics". They will keep presenting ad-hoc crashes with parameters beyond what helmets can deal with as "proof" they don't work. Anyway, the "consensus" already exists! among people who study and deal with head injuries!

Next time , make some sense.

rruff, grolby, JeffS - you can't go against common sense! No matter what studies or facts show, people will always trust their impressions more.

You're losing your temper. That means you've moved past the blubbering school girl phase. I hope an improvement. Now, go back and read the post I was replying to. You wrote: The point is to show that women (who make up a small percentage of bike riders in the US) can happily and safely use bikes as their primary mode of transportation... without helmets... so long as the society respects their right to be on the road.

You were implying that they ride safely due to their society's respect of them riding on the road (sans helmets of course, as this is your ridiculous stance all along). You didn't follow it with, "however, if they hit a pothole, patch of ice or large rock, their little heads don't crack like American's heads do."

If you had added that, I would have completely understood your logic.

You are correct, which is why it protects my skull in case I land on my head.

Helmets save your life, period.
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! (H. S.)

What!?! You joking? Let me restate: "my helmet hid the ground hard!" My head certainly would have as well!!!

When my son graduated from BMX to mt. bike (to be ridden around town), at around 12 yo, I figured it was time to get him a "real" helmet. The LBS said the skateboard helmet he had was just as safe, so I stuck with that. It's arguably cooler (as in 'hip') too.

I agree, and am not trying to change anyone's minds. As I've said before, I wear a helmet almost every time I turn a pedal.

I'm simply trying to point out that people's impressions, as you put it, are a moving target - influenced by a variety of things. In 1974 parents the world over, who loved their kids just as much as todays parents do, felt safe sending their kids out into the street without helmets. Today, you would be threatened with legal action, and looked upon as an unfit parent for doing the EXACT SAME THING.

Given the historical change in our perception of risk I have to wonder if kids twenty years from now will be allowed outside of the house without hermetically-sealed safety suits. Ironically though, with all our concern for safety, we are repeatedly unable to focus on the largest risks. Instead, we focus on the risk that garners the most tv time, results in the biggest lawsuit, or has the biggest lobby(or manufacturer) behind it. Whose going to say otherwise? The entire world runs on the assumption that you spend and increasing amount of money.The accessory market accompanying every primary market assures that the wheels of commerce keep churning.

Sometimes "common sense" is ****.

Except that the "facts" don't show that no-helmets are safer unless you cherry-pick the few ones that happen to support your position.

People impressions of the correct thing do change over time. It's called progress. For example, not that long ago, it was the "status quo" for whites to think that blacks were subhuman.

I don't think that will happen. It's not like wearing a helmet changes the nature of cycling.

=====================================

Let's see: take the case of a head impacting pavement from a height of 3 feet. Which one is likely to sustain less injury: one in a helmet or one without? It very clear the "bolder" statement is the notion that the helmet will provide zero statistical benefit. Yes, it's obvious.

I'll keep my helmet thanks, I'm just going to grow my hair out.

The main issue I have with that research is that a helmet is not about AVOIDING getting hit by a car, it's there for when you DO get hit.


Reminds me of a comedian's line (can't remember who) referring to people staying behind during a hurricane:

"It's not THAT the wind is blowing, it is WHAT the wind is blowing. If you get hit by a Vooooolvo...."

What makes these debates so fun is that we really are talking apples and pears. Using commuters in Amersterdam as a comparison is foolish compared to PCad - we have lots of people who use bikes here in Costa Rica (shock, unhelmeted!) who probably hit 8 MPH if they are really pushing it. :lol: I kid you not. And then you have PCad who is trying to convince himself that he can keep up with the big boys.

Just poking around at 10 to 14 MPH - not a big thing - bombing down a hill at 30 MPH+ - nothing is going to help you much if you hit something - it is totally luck if you walk away. The helmet will help some - but not enough to count on it. Even the helmet manufactors say so.

If course, I believe in miracles - since I don't wear a helmet unless I am doing single track or seeing how fast I can go - I should be dead many times over by now. Or perhaps it is just I am an old stick in the mud and not trying to see how fast I can go. I swear, I fall over a lot more walking - so much so I almost always have a walking stick now. I don't fear falling off a bike - but while walking? Now that is scary!

I sure don't think it is wrong for someone to wear a helmet while cycling - but I am not about to start until I start wearing one while walking - I know where my real risk lies!